|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-13-21 | | Albertan: Teenager Alireza Firouzja aiming to be youngest ever world champion: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2... |
|
| Nov-13-21 | | macer75: <metatron2:
<fisayo123: Now does that mean that Firouzja is the next Kasparov or Carlsen? You can't actually have a next Kasparov, Carlsen, Karpov or Fischer until the player in question actually DOES it.> True, but as for Firouzja, it is obvious that the one-in-a-generation-talent is there, and the motivation to improve in chess and succeed is there as well.> Indeed. The way things stand, it looks like Firouzja will probably be #4-5 in the next official FIDE ratings. The last person to rank that high at such a young age was Carlsen. |
|
| Nov-15-21 | | Mississaugan: I believe that Alireza Firouzja's mindset is exactly the same as Carlsen's, that's to vanquish the opposition to achieve his goal, unlike some players who would be so happy and relieved to settle for draws in unclear games when draw offers are extended. When one has gut one has glory. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | thebully99: I believe only 2 other people were in the top 4 prior to their 19th birthday: Carlsen and Kramnik. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | fisayo123: <thebully99> Kasparov as well obviously.
Some might say Fischer but he really was not yet that good until later on. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | fabelhaft: Top 3 while still 18 is tougher though, only Carlsen this far but soon probably also Firo. |
|
Nov-16-21
 | | alexmagnus: <Kasparov as well obviously> Yes, Kasparov's first appearance in the top 4 was (as shared 4th with two other players) on the July 1981 list. In January 1982 he was lone 4th. Another half a year later, at 19, he was 2nd. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | EdwinKorir: Another win, number 2 here we come |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | fisayo123: In Kasparov's era, the rating list was only updated every 6 months. According to chessmetrics, he was world #3 and touched #2 at 18. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... Kasparov in my opinion was better than both Korchnoi and Timman already. Hard to prove though |
|
Nov-16-21
| | alexmagnus: Chesmetrics ratings are not the same as Elo ratings though. Totally different computation method. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | fisayo123: True but they are more reliable than Elo ratings in making cross comparisons across history |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | nazmullincoln: Alireza just beat Armenian GM Sargissian and currently #3 in the live rating. 6 point behind #2 Ding Liren. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | ndg2: <fisayo123><True but they are more reliable than Elo ratings in making cross comparisons across history>No, this is a fallacy. What chessmetrics does is to provide a kind of metric for all of recorded chess history. But you *still* can't compare players from one era to another with that method. Only computer analysis of the moves and some correlation function to ELO can provide any meaningful comparison. What chess metrics does right is to account for inactivity. Lasker lost rating points in Chessmetrics during his many inactive years. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | fabelhaft: <Only computer analysis of the moves and some correlation function to ELO can provide any meaningful comparison> But it doesn’t say much that for example Alekseenko plays much better moves than Steinitz did. Steinitz was the best player in the world for a long time and won a bunch of title matches when he was 50+. If one should compare Steinitz and Alekseenko it makes more sense to compare their results against the top players of their time than having an engine analyse their moves. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | ndg2: I largely concur, <fabelhaft>. What I wanted to point out is, that move analysis is still a better comparison tool than to compare historical rating performances of different eras. Rating metrics are inherently bound to certain time and player demographic. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | fisayo123: <Only computer analysis of the moves and some correlation function to ELO can provide any meaningful comparison.> Modern players have the luxury of training with engines so how is that particularly meaningful in any way, shape or form. Most computer analysis also doesn't take into consideration difference in playing style and complexity of positions. How is this better than what chessmetrics has to offer? Another poor take from you. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | ndg2: If we want to compare playing strength in some "absolute" form (I know this is not truly possible, but still) then the best option is to use very strong engines. Comparison between player demographics of different eras definitely is less meaningful. |
|
Nov-16-21
 | | 0ZeR0: Regardless of how one measures or compares it, I think we can all agree this kid's future is bright which can only be good for chess. Let's enjoy it as it unfolds before us. We may not see another anomaly like this for a while. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | Whitehat1963: Number three on the live list at only 18! He will be a huge part of the picture for probably the next 15 years! Eventually, he might have the best chance at becoming the next world chess champion! |
|
| Nov-17-21 | | Mississaugan: The only reason I could think of as why Alireza is playing his games like a man in a hurry to get to the top is that his self confidence and the talent/capability that backs it is amazingly huge. Lesser talented players couldn't just go headlong and engage a match to the death, has lesser confidence. What feeds the confidence is the level of capability to deliver as well as the strong will to make it happen. |
|
Nov-17-21
 | | tamar: Firouzja is playing riskily, but not overly so.
Having Carlsen still far ahead of him might relieve the pressure of chasing 2800, which he shows no signs of feeling. |
|
| Nov-17-21 | | fabelhaft: Elo performance over the last dozen months:
1. Firouzja 2843
2. Carlsen 2839
3. Giri 2798
http://perpetualcheck.com/rang/inde... |
|
| Nov-17-21 | | metatron2: <ndg2: If we want to compare playing strength in some "absolute" form (I know this is not truly possible, but still) then the best option is to use very strong engines> Even if it was possible to compare absolute strengths of players from different points of time, then it would have been pretty meaningless, because chess keeps progressing over time (and especially with all the latest technology advances), and later players also study from the past players, so in general, they will be stronger then the past players in absolute strength. Anyway, when trying to do such comparisons with engine analysis, the results are usually very inaccurate (at best), because measuring the accuracy of one player, highly depends on the strength of his opponent, so if (for example) Capa is getting the highest engine accuracy scores, its mainly because his opposition was much weaker than modern opposition. There were attempts to add weights for the complexity of the positions when calculating such scores, but that's very far away from accurate science.. So the <only> thing that is worth comparing between players from different eras, is to compare the level of dominance they had during their primes, but even that is very problematic. Sometimes there are also claims like: "if player X came to our time and got access to all modern theory then he would beaten everybody". That's also nonsense. Players that were great in their era wouldn't necessarily be great on a different era. I'm not sure that Capa would even want to be a pro chess player if he was in our time, with all the work required today with databases and engines. |
|
| Nov-17-21 | | virginmind: Number three. OK, that's far enough! |
|
| Nov-17-21 | | Lambda: Engine-based comparisons will always be limited by the fact that how difficult a position is for humans to play is a large part of human play, and engines don't measure that. A move which exposes your king to an almighty attack might be considered good by an engine because it can calculate every line to safety, whilst being a very bad idea for a human to play. Or on the flipside, an engine might consider a move which leads to a pawn up endgame to be a good idea while a human player knows that sort of endgame will inevitably be drawn. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
